Posts Tagged ‘San Francisco’

As we speak, the Sheriff of San Francisco County says it’s all Obama’s ICE’s fault that the illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times before he found his heart in San Francisco and realized he was immune from justice and from whatever you want to call “the law” when liberals are in charge.

And, of course, the Sheriff is absolutely right. Barack Obama has the blood of Kathryn Steinle – along with at least 121 other murdered Americans – on his hands due to his wicked policies that free vicious criminals because they are illegal immigrants and Obama is the very worst kind of cynical partisan demagogue.

Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, ‘[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can’t comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

So Obama and his lawless thugs are trying to point fingers at San Francisco, but their fingers, their toes, their heads, and everything else are coated in BLOOD. And it is not only irrational but immoral for the Obama White House to try to dodge responsibility for their ONGOING SUPPORT OF THESE SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES.

This sheriff himself a convicted criminal says, he stands by the city’s policy. Kate’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrant, sanctuary cities in crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city’s decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?

And just in case you think I’ve run out of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is entirely to blame for this murderer being released to murder and frankly ought to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony murder, there’s a 5):

Which simply is one more example of many examples of a strategy that our lawless thug in chief routinely employs: to only bother with enforcing or allowing to be enforced laws that our naked ideologue fascist thug-in-chief wants to enforce, and to hell with all the laws he doesn’t like. As Politico reports:

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

I hope you notice how prominent a far leftist approach to illegal immigration is to Obama’s lawless criminal thuggery. I also hope you notice that being a lawless, fascist THUG is the core of Obama. The Bible calls it “the mystery of lawlessness” that we would see in the very final days just before the ultimate political beast otherwise known as the Antichrist comes. We were told in advance that wickedness and lawlessness would abound and the righteous would be stunned at the inability to do a damn thing about it.

But I suspect there’s a liberal out there who thinks, “No WAY he’s got a sixth reason to blame Kate Steinle’s murder on my messiah.” Well, I actually do. So here’s reason 6):

Again, the day Barack Hussein Obama raised his demon-possessed fingers and took the oath of office, Kate Steinle’s murder became a fait accompli. Obama and liberalism murdered that woman, straight up.

Now, mind you, the Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is a liberal, and therefore evil, and San Francisco is as evil and therefore as liberal as it gets. So it should surprise NO ONE that Sheriff didn’t even bother to acknowledge the murdered victim until he was nearly finished with his smarmy lecture – and when he finally deigned to do so, he mispronounced her name.

A bitter dispute over who bears responsibility for the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kathryn Steinle last week in San Francisco, has taken a surprise twist with the revelation that the San Francisco sheriff’s department asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons for custody of the 45-year-old Mexican national back in March.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the San Francisco sheriff’s department, which is headed by progressive sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Prisons on March 23 asking to be notified “when [Lopez-Sanchez is ready for our pick-up.”

Lopez-Sanchez was at the end of a 46-month sentence in a federal prison in Victorville, Cal. for felony illegal re-entry. But San Francisco had a $5,000 bench warrant from 1995 on Lopez-Sanchez for a marijuana possession for sale case, and the sheriff’s department sought to take custody of him.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat from pundits over her previous unabashed support of sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and thereby afford deportation protection to illegal immigrants.

Kate Steinle’s tragic murder could likely have been prevented if the city of San Francisco had notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez’s release from its custody, yet due to the city’s decades-long sanctuary policy, he was released onto the streets without a word, where he went on to kill 32-year-old Steinle. Sanchez had already been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests, notes The Daily Caller.

It was in September 2007 when then-Sen. Clinton said during a presidential debate that she supported sanctuary cities because they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

“If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes,” she said. “You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

Clinton responded, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re the local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they also think you are going to be enforcing immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton expressed her support again in 2008 in an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News:

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities,” O’Reilly asked, to which Clinton responded, “No, I’m not.”

More recently, in May, Clinton pledged to expand President Obama’s executive immigration actions, which have further legitimized sanctuary cities.

“If Congress refuses to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” Clinton said, reported The Washington Examiner. “I will fight to stop the partisan attacks on the president’s executive actions.”

Jessica Vaughan, policy director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained to The Daily Caller what a Clinton White House could look like.

“Hillary Clinton’s recent public statements indicate that she intends to outdo the Obama administration in dismantling immigration laws, so there is good reason to be concerned that this problem would get worse under a Clinton administration, and that more local governments would either be encouraged or coerced into obstructing ICE,” Vaughan said. “I would expect another Clinton administration to stoop to the same kind of legal hi-jinks, abuse of authority, disregard of safety and security, and then evasion of accountability, much as we witnessed when she was Secretary of State.”

Yes, there was a time when Hillary Clinton took the exact OPPOSITE view, just like she took many other exact opposite views such as leading the support for the Iraq War before being one of the most hypocritical turncoats on the very war that she supported to the betrayal of the American serviceman who had to continue to fight the war she betrayed. Here she is saying she was opposed to sanctuary cities because as a liberal progressive NAZI all Hillary Clinton really gives a damn about is her own power and she will betray any one or any thing or any principle to grab that power:

Note that when it was politically expedient to do so, Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “adamantly against illegal immigration,” NO: she was against IMMIGRANTS. The leftist propaganda media loves to frame Republicans as “anti-immigrant,” but here’s the POSTER BITCH for being “adamantly against immigrants.” Further, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are only “adamantly against” anything that would get in the way of their god Lucifer taking over the United States of America after they’re finished kicking Jesus Christ to the curb; that’s the ONLY thing they’re “adamantly opposed” to. For anything else, they’ll be adamantly against it before they’re just as adamantly for it before they’re adamantly against it again. And all that matters to them is that they can lie, lie, lie their way to power and to more power.

Basically, liberalism is evil. Liberals are evil. And every resident of San Francisco and frankly every single American deserves to die because the people we put in power are fascist cockroaches from hell.

Here’s an idea: make sanctuary cities the next Confederate flag: ban them, ban anyone who now does or ever HAS supported them, burn them all down to the ground. Or just wallow in your disgusting hypocrisy.

If you use my search engine to explore my use of the word “fascist,” you’ll see I “liberally” apply it to liberalism. And to Obama and his liberal thugs. What the Obama administration did with DOMA – passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton – and what he has since done with illegal immigration in an incredibly illegal and cynical attempt to win the Hispanic vote are just a couple of your more obvious examples.

The thing is, I’m completely right to do so, and liberals keep proving that I’m completely right.

Chick-fil-A is the latest (well, there are a thousand examples every day, so let’s just say it’s the latest mass media example) example of liberal fascism.

Let me first just ask this question: when was the last time a religious conservative mayor went after a business for its anti-BIBLICAL views???

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”

Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.

“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to. …We want responsible businesses,” Moreno said.

“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period …. If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”

Don Perry, vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, and senior manager Jerry Johnston could not be reached for comment on the opposition from the mayor and Moreno.

Chick-fil-A has already obtained zoning approval to build a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston. But, the company still needs City Council approval to divide the land and purchase a lot near Home Depot.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy was quoted as saying.

Appearing on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy was further quoted as saying, “I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”

Cathy’s comments have infuriated gay rights activists across the nation, prompting their political allies to take a stand against the company.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of Cathy’s discriminatory stance.

On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views. The only question is whether they have a legal leg to stand on.

“Absolutely not,” said former Ald. William Banks (36th), the longtime chairman of the City Council’s Zoning Committee who presided over a massive re-write of the city’s 1957 zoning ordinance.

“Any alderman can hold a development issue for virtually any purpose. But if he’s doing it for the wrong reasons — if he’s citing a gay rights issue — there’s nothing illegal about that.”

Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.

San Francisco Mayor Ewdin Lee also joined the chorus opposing Chick-fil-A with a tweet saying: ‘Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.’

What was Chick-fil-A’s crime that they should be punished and deprived of their rights? The CEO stated that he believed that marriage was the union between one man and one woman and Chick-fil-A was “caught” having exercised its 1st Amendment right to donate to a pro-family cause that supported that view of marriage.

Fascists hate Chick-fil-A for that.

Liberals have repeatedly claimed that Republicans are hoping the economy is bad so that they can win in November. But it is LIBERALS who want job destruction and who do not want economic growth. Can Chick-fil-A create jobs in Boston or Chicago? Uh-uh, they can’t. Can Chick-fil-A grow and help the economy grow? Not if Democrats have anything to do with it, they can’t.

Anti-biblical views. I brought that up. What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Genesis 19:4-5,12-13: Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” … Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:18, 22, 25-27:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. … Professing to be wise, they became fools … Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Is it okay if Bible-believing politicians and government officials freely persecute anybody who holds an “anti-biblical view”??? I hope every liberal out there is saying, “You’re damn right it’s okay!” Because otherwise you people are hypocrites.

If any lefty wants to say that’s happened, let’s see it: let’s see the conservative mayor who has said, “Those who hold anti-biblical views discriminate against Christians. Such people don’t represent what our city stands for and we’re going to punish them with the power of government.”

Just imagine the damn outcry if a conservative mayor punished gay people the way Boston and Chicago attacked a Christian business. You want to bet that Barack Obama and his attacking lawdog Eric Holder wouldn’t be all over that major like the stink on poop that they already are?

Quite a few people have praised Chick-fil-A for its business model. Allow me to criticize it: they ought to shake the filthy dust of Boston and Chicago from their feet and create jobs and build the economy in places that deserve to have jobs and economic growth.

We don’t have a Chick-fil-A in my own area (although locating in the Palm Springs area would be out of the frying pan and into the fire, wouldn’t it?), but if we did I’d be a Chick-fil-A-eating fool to thank them for being one of the few businesses that actually stands for something other than PC or profit. I used to eat at one in Anaheim and it’s gooooood.

And as yet another example of liberal fascism, the same damn fascist liberals who are trying to ban Chick-fil-A are doing everything they can to grant more permits for more Islamofascist mosques. Liberals self-righteously say, “We don’t support or endorse their beliefs or practices but we have a constitutional obligation to support their freedoms. But Chick-Fil-A fascism proves once for all that it isn’t any “moral principle” of freedom that liberals are standing on. Because the left would have called for Rahm Emanuel, Thomas Menino, and all the Democrats and liberals who joined their call for punitive action against Chick-Fil-A to RESIGN if that were the case. No, rather, vicious terrorists fanatical Muslims are (for obvious reasons to anyone who understands that the left is fascist) the ONLY religious group that liberals stand behind.

If you’re a liberal, you’re a fascist. And the more liberal you are, the more freaking fascist you are. The fact that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are still in office after defecating all over the 1st Amendment is proof of that pudding.

ABC’s The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren’t in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: “anyone who eats S–t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ”.

This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck an appendage she doesn’t have.

This outbreak of hate was retweeted by comedian Joe Rogan, who recently hosted a newfangled version of “Fear Factor” on NBC. Shortly after her get-cancer tweet, she doubled down:

“off to grab a s–it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.”

Meanwhile, fascist liberals are seeking to forcibly close Chick-Fil-A restraurants at at least two state university campuses:

Liberals hate free speech, hate the Constitution, hate human life. They also hate businesses and jobs and even taxes – given that the one Chicago Chick-Fil-A created 97 jobs and pays taxes. Now liberals clearly don’t believe in God; but whatever replaces God for them – I suppose it’s ‘Government forbid!’ – that we let in a business that will pay taxes and create jobs. Again, what they REALLY want is to be able to control everything and reward their friends and punish their enemies and decide who wins and who loses. That’s the quintessential nature of fascism.

As NewsBusters previously noted, there were 204 ObamaCare waivers issued in April, and almost 20 percent of them went to establishments in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) San Francisco district.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Boyle noted a number of the establishments getting these waivers are very high-priced eateries in Pelosi’s district, many of which as a Bay Area resident I can attest to being some of the finest in the nation.

[O]ne might think that a restaurant that charges $59 for a porterhouse steak as Boboquivari’s does could afford to fit its health care plan to Pelosi’s own specifications. The same goes for Café Mason, with its $60 entrees, and Tru Spa, which Allure Magazine calls “the best day spa in San Francisco.” If these kinds of high-tone joints can’t afford ObamaCare, then how can anyone else?

The odds of one Representative getting 20% of a batch of waivers from the Obama administration as a coincidence seems rather high. Once again, we have to wonder exactly how waiver applications are judged and approved. With its high percentage of unions and party leader constituents, this is looking more and more like a mechanism for political payoffs.

Indeed.

Just think if current Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) had procured these waivers for his district in Ohio. Can you imagine the media uproar?

Let’s see whether Pelosi’s shenanigans get much attention from her sycophants in the press.

In what is fast becoming a weekly event, the Obama administration granted 200 more companies aivers from the Democrats’ sweeping health care law in the Friday night news dump. That brings the number of companies receiving waivers to 1,372. (You can get a full list of the companies exempted here.)

Not surprisingly, it helps to be a Democratic ally when seeking a waiver. The Republican Policy Committee reports that over half of the workers that have been exempted so far belong to unions:

The plans newly approved for waivers cover more than 160,000 people, bringing to nearly 3.1 million the number of individuals in plans exempted from the health law’s requirements. Of the participants receiving waivers, more than half – over 1.55 million – are in union plans, raising questions of why such a disproportionate share of union members are receiving waivers from the law’s requirements. The percentage of participants receiving waivers that come from unions also continues to rise – the number was 48% in April, and 45% in March.

Unions already received a generous concession in the health care bill. Their generous “cadilac” insurance plans were exempted from being taxed until 2018, adding about $120 billion to the bill’s cost over ten years. For more on how the administration has helped unions, see my story in THE WEEKLY STANDARD from a few weeks ago.

The total fiasco fondly known as “ObamaCare” is going to be a total disaster for America. And even the liberals who actually have to make payrolls understand that.

Every Democrat who even APPLIES for a waiver ought to go to prison. You voted for this load of sh*t, dammit YOU EAT IT.

Instead, Obama is very clearly granting waivers from his vile healthcare destroying law to his political supporters, such that the people who voted for Obama’s socialist takeover of America will be exempted from it, while those who decried it are going to get stuck with it.

It’s kind of like socialists who vote themselves other people’s money; only now they’re also voting for other people’s death panels, too.

NBC pulled out every single propaganda bomb in its massive propaganda arsenal to depict this as a tragic story of unparalleled human suffering in the face of an immoral state government enacting an immoral law.

The problem was, I kept reading the transcript and thinking, “My goodness, the illegals are actually leaving on their own! How wonderful! What a fantastic law!”

The other thing I thought was, “Finally. A sanctuary state!” By which I mean, a state finally taking the measures to free itself from the oppression and burden of illegal immigration.

NBC’s Lee Cowan, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, discovered a stunning result of Arizona’s new immigration policies – illegal immigrants are now leaving the state. Cowan opened his piece noting a long line now “stretches around the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix every day” but noticed a twist, as the line was full of “immigrants trying to figure out not how to stay in Arizona, but how to flee it.” Cowan peppered his story with anecdotes of local businesses losing customers “A look around this once-bustling barrio is telling. The local hair salon has more empty chairs now than customers” and schools losing students as he claimed “School numbers are dwindling, too. This one is 75 percent Hispanic. Since the immigration law passed, they’ve lost more than 100 students.” Cowan even punctuated this factoid with the sob story of a boy being taken out of school by his father to go back to Mexico:

LEE COWAN: For the Bolanos family, they stayed as long as they could.

MARCIAL BOLANOS, ARIZONA RESIDENT: Arizona is a good state, but no more now.

COWAN: He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?

HUGO BOLANOS: Yeah.

While Cowan did air a soundbite of a Republican state senator who pointed out that it was “kind of a novel idea” that people were “actually worried they may be arrested for breaking the law” he concluded his piece by emphasizing the economic cost of Arizona’s new immigration policy: “It may be months before anyone knows for sure just how many illegal immigrants and their business the law has scared away. Supporters say good riddance, but critics fear the damage has already started.”

The following is a transcript of the Cowan segment as it was aired on the July 8 edition of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Now we turn to Arizona, where the federal government is challenging the state’s tough new immigration law. Arizona’s governor set up a fund to defend the law. As of today, 9,000 people, mostly from out of state, have contributed a half a million dollars to the effort. Some of those targeted by the new law are not waiting for it to take effect later this summer. They’re leaving the state now. NBC’s Lee Cowan has our report.

LEE COWAN: One way to measure the effect of Arizona’s pending immigration law is the length of this line. It stretches around the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix every day, immigrants trying to figure out not how to stay in Arizona, but how to flee it.

LUIS BALENCEA, ARIZONA RESIDENT: There’s a lot of people already leaving for New Mexico, leaving something else, you know.

COWAN: Anywhere but here.

BALENCEA: Anywhere, yeah. Nobody want to stay here.

COWAN: A look around this once-bustling barrio is telling. The local hair salon has more empty chairs now than customers. The owner is even losing two employees.

ROSANA QUINTERO, SALON OWNER: People look very sad. And we feel sad, too.

COWAN: The café next door is even emptier.

MARIA SIERRA, BUSINESS OWNER: I ask the people, and they say they afraid to come out.

COWAN: School numbers are dwindling, too. This one is 75 percent Hispanic. Since the immigration law passed, they’ve lost more than 100 students.

JEFF SMITH, BALSZ SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT: This is sort of the tip of the iceberg. More are waiting until the law goes into effect, and then we’ll see more people leaving during the summer.

COWAN: To the authors of Arizona’s tough new immigration stance, if there is a mass exodus of illegal immigrants, so be it.

REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR RUSSELL PEARCE: Kind of a novel idea, you know, people actually worried they may be arrested for breaking the law.

COWAN: The problem is there really are no hard numbers on the issue. So the question critics are asking: Is this exodus a myth or a fact?

BILL HART, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: We think it’s fact. We don’t exactly know what’s happening, but we know something’s happening on a large scale.

COWAN: For the Bolanos family, they stayed as long as they could.

MARCIAL BOLANOS, ARIZONA RESIDENT: Arizona is a good state, but no more now.

COWAN: He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?

HUGO BOLANOS: Yeah.

COWAN: And your school?

(Hugo nods head)

COWAN: It may be months before anyone knows for sure just how many illegal immigrants and their business the law has scared away. Supporters say good riddance, but critics fear the damage has already started. Lee Cowan, NBC News, Phoenix.

I mean, we’ve continually been told, “You can’t arrest and deport 12-20 million people!” We’ve been told that we used to be able to put a man on the moon, but now we can’t put a wall on the border. What this shows is that we don’t have to arrest and deport 12-20 million people. We can simply start actually enforcing our laws, and watch illegal immigrants deport themselves.

It’s funny how Mexicans and Hispanics call the Arizona law “racist,” when it doesn’t even begin to be as strict as the Mexican immigration law – which is clearly intended to keep Central American Hispanics out of Mexico.

Which is another way of pointing out that the actual racists are the ones who are attacking Arizona.

The people who are opposing the Arizona law – which is nothing more than Arizona making what is already a federal crime a state crime – do not want ANY enforcement of our borders whatsoever. They want America to be a borderless socialist utopia. As in “Communists of the world, unite!”

And it’s the same on the left from the Marxist-in-Chief on down: nobody is saying, “We’re going to secure our borders.” Rather, at best, we see Obama demagoguing the issue and holding border security – his sworn duty to uphold as president – hostage to his leftists political agenda.

I would love to see someone start offering free travel to sanctuary city San Fransisco, under the theory that if the city of San Fransisco really wants illegal immigrants, let it have them. But if someone were to offer free transportation for illegal immigrants to San Fransisco, NBC and the rest of the mainstream media would depict it as analogous to the freight cars that hauled the Jews to their deaths in Nazi Germany. Even though San Fransisco is supposed to be a socialist Utopian paradise, rather than a death camp, and even though the illegal immigrants would be traveling voluntarily. Because propaganda is what they do.

And, even funnier yet, the driver of the van heading for San Fransisco would be arrested – on the demand of the left – for transporting illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants would be set free; the driver would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of California. While the media covered every sordid detail to cut and edit into their slanted narrative, of course.

On any issue you want to name, the mainstream media will select the leftist side of a story, and only show the “facts” that support that side. That’s just who they are.

The funniest thing of all is that these people – whom NBC depicts as such oppressed victims – are themselves ultimately victims of the media. It’s not a bad law that’s making them leave; it’s a bad media that is falsely and demagogically depicting the Arizona law as something it isn’t in order to stir up still more fearmongering.

“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”

No, it was beside the point that Joe Wilson was right and Obama really WAS lying. What mattered was that decorum had been violated.

And then there was somthing else that Nancy Pelosi made – inspired by the “hateful remark” made by Joe Wilson – that further ratcheted up the debate:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

So Nancy Pelosi came out and lied about and then demagogued a historical event as a ploy to demonize Republicans and anything they might say in opposition to the liberal agenda. It was a vile thing for her to do.

The fact of the matter was that Joe Wilson was wrong in his outburst, and he apologized both personally and in a letter.

Didn’t matter. Nancy Pelosi’s House censured him anyway, taking a day of the people’s time to do it. “Decorum,” remember.

So with all that as backdrop, let’s proceed to the latest bit of “This kind of rhetoric” that “is just, is really frightening” and which could easily create “a climate in which … violence” could take place.

“It’s my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America… It’s a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republican health care plan for America: ‘don’t get sick.’ If you have insurance don’t get sick, if you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick; if you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick. … If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: ‘die quickly.'”

It was utterly outrageous. For two reasons. Number one, the Republicans – who have submitted more than three dozen health care reform bills and who actually held them over their head and waved them during the Obama speech – currently have a major bill to reform health bill available to any who would just look at it. It is just a lie that amounts to rank demagoguery to claim that Republicans don’t have a plan beyond, “don’t get sick” and “die quickly.” Number two, the polls are crystal clear: senior citizens – who presumably would not want to rely on a plan to “not get sick” and then to “die quickly” – are opposed to the Democrats’ plan by a nearly 2-1 margin. From Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

So according to Alan Grayson, not only Republicans, but nearly two out of every three seniors who basically support the Republican position on health care, want seniors to die. Grayson’s remark was both insane and immoral.

Republicans called upon Alan Grayson to do what Joe Wilson had done (RIGHT AWAY) and apologize for his statement. Here’s what they got:

Republicans got an apology of sorts from Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson Wednesday – it just wasn’t the one they wanted.

Instead of saying he was sorry about accusing Republicans of wanting people to “die quickly,” he gave an apology “to the dead.”

“I would like to apologize,” he said. “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

And thus a man representing the party that has murdered nearly 50 million human beings before they could even enjoy being born compares Republicans to Adolf Hitler and their actions to the murder of six million Jews.

That same article, for what it’s worth, also further points out what a patholigical liar Grayson is:

Grayson provided the contretemps of the day on Capitol Hill, and even one of his party’s leaders, Democratic Caucus Chairman John B. Larson of Connecticut, at one point publicly called on him to apologize for Tuesday night’s speech.

“I wouldn’t have used the words that Mr. Grayson has,” Larson said. “I would encourage Alan to apologize.”

Later, Grayson contested whether Larson really meant what he said.

“I spoke to him and he did not ask me to apologize,” Grayson offered.

He also claimed he hadn’t said “Republicans want you to die quickly” – until a reporter read his words back to him.

Not only did Grayson say “Republicans want you to die quickly”; he literally had the words written down on a giant card which he displayed on an easel as he spoke. That’s how much of a twisted lying weasel this guy is.

And do the Democrats – who as we now know so value decorum – call upon Alan Grayson to first apologize and then shut his lying mouth?

Absolutely not.

Did the Democrats – who literally shed alligator tears decrying the hateful rhetoric – demand that one of their own cease and desist from hateful rhetoric?

Absolutely not.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had this to say to defend the man who said that Republicans want seniors to die (with said Republicans supported by 59% of seniors) and that the Republicans had created a holocaust of people dying without health care:

“We have to have a debate that is not distracted from… Apparently Republicans are holding Democrats to a higher level than they are holding their own members,” she said, referring to floor comments by some Republicans who have said Democratic health care reforms would lead to higher deaths among seniors.

“There’s no more reason for Mr. Grayson to apologize… If anybody’s going to apologize everybody should apologize,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference.

Well again, Nancy Pelosi, in defending Grayson, has to lie to do it. Republicans aren’t trying to hold Democrats to a “higher standard”:

Many other Republicans called for Wilson to apologize, including his Republican House leadership. And Joe Wilson DID apologize.

“I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health-care bill,” Wilson said in a statement. “While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable.”

So it’s a lie that Republicans are trying to hold Democrats to a “higher standard.” Rather, they are trying to hold Democrats to the VERY SAME standard Republicans had held for themselves, and in fact the VERY SAME STANDARD THAT DEMOCRATS HAD JUST HELD REPUBLICANS TO.

Note to Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat minions: please don’t get so damn hoity toity with your self righteous outrage when it suits you, only to show what blatant hypocrites you are the very next moment when it suits you. Your hypocrisy shines through like brilliant glittering diamonds.

As vile, hateful, and dishonest as Alan Grayson’s remarks have been, that isn’t where the real outrage is. No, the real outrage is the complete dishonesty and the rabid demagoguery of the Democrat leadership – especially as epitomized in Nancy Pelosi.

When a party demands that one party be held accountable to violations to “decorum,” and then cynically violates that very same decorum with far more loathsome and dishonest outbursts, it is past time to remove that party from power.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

I find a few things hilarious. First of all, remember not very long ago when the Democrats were accusing us of “manufactured anger”? Well, when that lie failed, they trot out another one – and lie one a direct contradiction from the last lie. Before, it was “apparent outrage” and “manufactured anger” from “Astroturfers.” Fake protesters with fake anger. Now all of a sudden they are so afraid of this very REAL and GENUINE anger that they have to wonder if we’re going to become violent.

But let’s consider the actual violence that made Nancy the Alligator so teary-eyed:

Remember the elderly man in stage four cancer who got shoved around by SEIU thugs? That was Democrats doing the physical attacking:

You remember that black conservative named Kenneth Gladney who got physically beaten and kicked by four SEIU goons as he tried to hand out “Don’t Tread On Me” flags outside of a town hall event? That was Democrats doing the physical attacking:

These are people who go to bed at night wondering how they can demonize and lie about their opponents. And if the lie the tell the following morning completely contradicts the lie they told the previous night, it doesn’t matter. Democrats are thorough-going postmodernists. Truth is irrelevant. Mutual contradictions can simultaneously exist. Facts don’t matter; only the will to power matters. And they can deconstruct reality and re imagine history to suit their ambitions.

Let’s see. Where has the violence come from? Gee, I remember it coming from the Democrats and being directed toward the Republicans.

What’s interesting is that Pelosi is clearly alluding to the murder of gay Democrat politicians Harvey Milk and George Moscone. There’s no question that Milk was brutally murdered – but maybe Nancy Pelosi is simply too stupid and too ignorant to know that Milk and Moscone were murdered by a DEMOCRAT who was angry because his fellow Democrats refused to reappoint him.

So we have demagogue Nancy Pelosi falsely demonizing the right for hate that is clearly coming from her side – and shedding false tears to remind us of what turns out to be a lie – as the violence she alludes to was committed by DEMOCRATS. This woman has no honor, no credibility, and absolutely no shame.

Nancy Pelosi and those like her are liars to the cores of their shriveled, hollow souls. And if she truly has any desire to stop “this kind of frightening rhetoric,” the first thing she needs to do is stop spreading her evil hatred and her demonic lies.

We are under such sustained and such false attack that protesters are resigned to carry signs like this:

Not that it matters: demagogues in the Democrat Party along with their media propagandist lackeys call it ‘racism’ or whatever else suits them anyway.

Here’s an example of where we stand as a free country being objectively informed by an independent media. MSNBC has this story:

What they don’t tell you – after showing this threatening figure with the assault weapon slung over his shoulder and raising the conclusion that this is “racial” – is that the man is black. As the next video of the SAME event reveals:

Newsbusters carries the full story, with a transcript to show just how blatantly dishonest the media has become.

We have become a society that is being spoon fed one lie after another, by Democrats and by the mainstream media, as liberals attempt to impose their agenda by the most vile tactics ever seen in this country. The innocent are demonized by the guilty, edited and polished for mass consumption.

My telling the truth by revealing the fraud and the twisted lies by people like Nancy Pelosi is not hateful; her lies and demagoguery are.

There are a number of solidly blue large states that will drive up the tally of Obama’s popular vote support. California, New York, and Illinois are examples of states that should easily go to Obama by huge margins.

But winning one state by a big margin in an all or nothing state doesn’t mean any more in the Presidential contest than winning that state by one single vote.

We are a nation that decides Presidents by an electoral college system that is based on building a coalition of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes. Any combination of states that results in at least 270 electoral college votes wins the White House.

Right now, there are fundamentally seven “battleground” states that will decide the election, with the remaining states having already fallen one way or the other: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The way the election has been breaking based on polling data, McCain has to win the first seven, or make up for a loss by winning Pennsylvania.

The point is, McCain could easily lose the popular vote by a significant margin and still win the election by narrowly winning the states he needs to win. In the 2000 election, Gore lost to Bush while receiving a little over half a million more popular votes. The same thing could happen to Obama, only on a much more massive scale of several million votes.

The coal industry is located in some of the hardest-hit states. Obama’s words could have devastating consequences for a large swath of the nation.

Rasmussen currently has McCain tied with Obama in four of those vital states (Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, and Virginia), and the Rasmussen data would not include either the full extent of the late McCain surge or the fallout from Obama’s “bankrupt the coal plants” statement. And the poll that predicted the race most accurately in the last presidential election has the national race within two points, within the IBD/TIPP poll’s margin of error. Most polls show the race at a 6-7 point gap.

On top of these factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, in which people told pollsters misleading information, but in the end refused to vote for a black candidate (Tom Bradley) who had led in the polls and who continued to lead in the exit polling in the 1982 race for Governor of California. And Barack Obama, whether due to the “Bradley Effect” or something else, did not prove to be a stong finisher during the primary races against Hillary Clinton. John McCain, by contrast, has always been a historically strong finisher who has relied on a “72 hour” strategy and simply doesn’t have any quit in him.

It may be a crucial factoid that seven of the eight critical states are traditionally Republican. If Republicans have a stronger get-out-the-vote machine in their “home field states,” McCain may very well pull out a shocking win.

But we can go back to 1980 to see the media asking the question, “Where the Polls Went Wrong” to try to cope with bad projections that led to massive failures by both the polling organizations and the media who broadcast what turned out to be disinformation.

One thing I know: nobody deserves to look bad more than the mainstream media.

Proposition 8 is a big deal in the State of California. The only political issue getting more campaign funding than Proposition 8 is the Presidential election itself. If passed, it would re-impose the view of marriage overwhelmingly passed by California voters with 61% of the vote in 2000. If it fails, homosexual marriage – which was imposed by judges ignoring the landslide result of Proposition 22 – would pass by a vote of the people.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started the homosexual marriage ball rolling when – flouting the law he was supposed to uphold – he began to perform homosexual marriages. Frankly Mayor Newsom should have been arrested and prosecuted. And he would have been in any society that holds elected officials accountable to laws that other citizens are held accountable to. Courts finally ordered him to stop, but homosexual couples waved their marriage licenses and sued. And activist judges made homosexual marriage the law of the land by judicial fiat.

Other than the documented FACT that it has already happened in Massachusetts, where kids ARE indoctrinated into homosexual marriage and the courts have ruled, “public schools are not obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to their parents,” there is another little issue to consider that should serve to prove that schools would promote homosexual marriage: namely, the fact that the California Teachers Union is the NUMBER ONE financial supporter against the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Ask yourself one question: if teachers don’t intend to teach homosexual marriage in California schools, then why in the hell do we have this:

California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

They can’t WAIT to indoctrinate your little darlings into homosexual marriage. They have proven complete failures at teaching children how to read, or solve simple math problems, but teaching your little boy that there’s nothing wrong with him being bent over and sodomized is another issue entirely. They think they’d actually be pretty doggone good at teaching that.

The education “professionals” who say that California schools would not be required to teach homosexual marriage are incredibly deceptive. In fact, schools wouldn’t have to teach homosexual marriage if and only if schools didn’t teach sex education. It is technically true that sex education is a curriculum choice for local schools (Cal. Ed. Code 51933). But the simple fact of the matter is that almost EVERY school teaches sex education. And IF a local school district teaches sex education, THEN it falls under the rule that “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)). And that would mean teaching homosexual marriages if homosexual marriage is legal.

If you DON’T think teachers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of teaching sodomy to your children, then you get to explain why they are so massively funding the political campaign.

The second thing I keep hearing is, this is a human rights issue. Well, no it isn’t. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. If marriage WERE a fundamental human right, then the government – which has the duty of guaranteeing human rights – would have to find me a marriage partner if I couldn’t find one myself. After all, I have a right to be married! And if I have the right to marry who I choose, then I choose Teri Hatcher (whom I’ve always thought is real pretty).

How do you decide to redefine the “one man, one woman” view of marriage that’s been around since Adam and Eve and hold the line at homosexual couples? Legalizing homosexual marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and justifying it will provide justification for all the rest.

The fact of the matter is, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” doesn’t take away homosexual’s right to marriage: a homosexual man can marry any woman who would have him. Same as me. Homosexuals’ rights aren’t being “taken away”; rather, they do not wish to have normal sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, rather like the pedophiles who do not wish to have normal sexual relations with an adult of the opposite sex. That’s hardly my fault. So don’t force me to sanctify this “Adam and Steve” thing.

I now understand why teachers are so pathetic at actually teaching children how to learn: they are moral idiots. They don’t understand fundamental human realities. They are ideologues who don’t even know how to think themselves, and therefore cannot possibly teach children how to think for themselves. Obviously this frank damnation of teachers doesn’t extend to every individual teacher; but the fact remains that there are enough ideologues in the field of teaching to instill radical union leadership.

Sadly, I’m really not exaggerating: teachers are being trained as “agents of change” who “question the legitimacy of a flawed social order.”

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Well, apparently Pennsylvanians agree with that assesment; after all: the guy who so opined is well up in the polls there. Pennsylvanians are poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freaks who are too stupid to tolerate anyone who isn’t similarly a poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freak like themselves.

Well, since Pennsylvanians don’t seem to mind being called all that, Rep. Jack Murtha – the “hero of Haditha” – decided to label them as “racists” too.

I mean, why not?

Murtha said:

“There’s no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” Murtha said. “The older population is more hesitant.”

Maybe he was just dotting the i’s, making sure Pennsylvanians – who clearly can’t be all that bright – understand that “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” is really just a wine-sipping pinky-in-the-air way of saying “racist.”

Congressman Jack Murtha is one of those human beings who is literally not worth his weight in pig poop, in my humble opinion.

But he stands in the fine tradition of Democratic politicians.

I don’t know, Pennsylvanians: at some point, I suppose I’d start to get really angry at the Democrats who keep raining piss down on you from lofty Mount Olympus. I suppose you can prove them right by voting for them.

Liberals love to present themseves as “tolerant” and “intellectual,” providing a forum for different ideas and being open to new experiences. The fact that it is a gigantic croc of something really putrid is completely irrelevant.

An organic wine from Chile has oenophiles in San Francisco turning up their noses. But there’s nothing wrong with the wine. It’s the name that bothers them:

Palin Syrah.

The wine from a boutique vineyard in Chile was once a strong seller, but now it’s an outcast in the City by the Bay because its name comes way too close to a certain governor from the state of Alaska, says Celine Guillou, co-owner of the Yield Wine Bar.

Palin Syrah — pronounced Pay-LEEN — takes its name from a ball used in a Chilean-style hockey game, and it has been on the bar’s wine list for a while. But sales have plummeted ever since John McCain named Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

The story goes on to say, “Before McCain made his announcement it was selling very well, because it’s an affordable wine and it’s from South America,” Guillou said. “Then he made his announcement and we hear people making comments constantly about the wine.”

And we learn that:

Now that the wine has been unofficially blacklisted by San Franciscans, its place on Yield Wine Bar’s list is threatened. “I think people try to see the humor in it, but we’re in San Francisco, so most of the people we have in I’m going to suspect are fairly liberal. People like to joke about it, but for some people it evokes quite a visceral reaction,” Guillou said.

I really have to hand it to San Fransisco liberals; their intolerance, their ingorance, their hostility, and their never-ending ability to put “visceral reactions” ahead of reality time and time again never ceases to amaze me. I mean, you think, “They can’t all be completely crazy, can they?” Oh, yes they can.

Hey, conservatives, think like liberals: don’t let your children play with blocks, because it sounds too much like ‘Barack.’